 It's June the 8th, 2022. It's Wednesday, 11 o'clock. That could mean only one thing. Time for American Issues, Take One. The title of the show today is the January 6 House hearings finally revealed. In Thursday by 1 o'clock, a polite time, or there about 1 o'clock, we are probably going to see some fairly dramatic findings that the House Select Committee will report on. Probably the biggest information in news that we will see about what happened to the capital, the attack on the capital, who was behind the attack on the capital. We will see this information roll out. And that'll be as big as it was, or probably bigger, than the Watergate hearings that took place back in 1973. And with me to discuss this pending hearing is our good friend Chuck Crumpton, mediator. Chuck, welcome. Thanks, Jim. Always a pleasure. It's not always easy to discuss something that hasn't happened. But here we are today, doing exactly that. But we can come to some conclusions and actually some accurate predictions before the hearings actually take place. My first question is, we've been getting dribs and drabble of information now for 17 months. And I guess the question is, did the GOP make a wise decision not to go with a commission, a bipartisan commission? My understanding of commissions, you don't leak any information at all until the report is ready to be produced. Versus what took place now is obviously the House Select Committee to investigate and report their findings. But as you know, it's been coming out for the last 17 months in dribs and drabs. Was it wise for the GOP not to decide to use a commission versus this House Select Committee? That's a great question, Jim. And I think I stepped back from the question to say, was it really a decision or was it just a continued strategy? My personal sense from the information that's been made available to all of us up to now is this is a strategy that has been set and has been hardening and expanding since the Reagan year to become more and more divisive, less concerned for bipartisan, balanced, fact-finding, problem-solving approaches, and to move away from dialogue to combative monologues. So whether it's the Republican Party, Mitch McConnell, McCarthy, funny, he should have that name, huh? Yeah. Funny. Or Fox, which doesn't deserve a second syllable. It's just Fox. It's just Fox. Good point. The French spelled it more correctly, which is F-A-U-X. Meaning Fuguezi in Italian. Well, what are we going to expect? What do you expect to hear? Will it be kind of long and drawn out like the Watergate hearings? Or do you think they're going to acknowledge that the attention span of the American public is that of a nap? And so are we going to see an explosion of information that maybe we are not aware of or have not heard of yet and have that all laid out on the first day, or maybe the day one and day two of the hearings? Or what do you expect before coming when these hearings begin? It's also a great question. And it follows, actually, very appropriately from the first one, because if what's really going on is a strategic war for control of the narrative, particularly through media, including and maybe even mostly social media, then the only choice left to the Democratic Party is to try and win that war, not to try and make it into a deliberative balance bipartisan dialogue. That's not going to happen. It hasn't happened here for at least five years. But don't the Democrats fall for that trap each and every time. The GOP waves the banner of bipartisanship and cooperation. And naively, the Democrats go, oh, OK, great idea. We'd like to do that. And then every time it's Lucy pulling the football out from Charlie Brown just before he boots it. I think we're that question point. It was an editorial more than a question. No, but it's very focused. If you look at the tone, the tenor, the spirit behind the way that the GOP conducts its strategic war for control of the narrative as contrasted with the traditional Democratic presentation approach, I think rather than saying one's right, one's stronger, the difference in styles reflects what each one thinks is going to work best for it. And it's got to be disappointing to people who were traditionally highly respected conservatives, Eisenhower Republicans, or even people after that. I don't think anybody could point to situations where Bob Dole, as strong and aggressive or Republican as he was, ever resorted to the kinds of tactics that we're seeing now. And so one of the questions for the Democrats is, OK, do you lower yourself to that level and try and win that war in the muck, whether it's Quagmire, Quicksand, or whatever? Or do you try and take a high road? And unfortunately, there seem to be elements of both. Yeah, there are those who would argue, and I probably would include myself as one of them, that probably the most naive statement was when Michelle Obama stated, when they go low, we go high. Because you're not going to win by going high every time with the Republicans. You just don't win. And if you want to win, then perhaps you need to meet them somewhere on an equal plane and equal field of battle. Before we move past that, because that's a really important insight, Tim. And so the question is, if you're going to go high, who is your target audience? If your target audience is, for lack of a better word, the undecided, the independence, the people who are not rigidly right wing or progressive left wing, but those who may be still making decisions, still weighing information, if that's your target, then going high takes on a much different tone than if you're doing the Bernie Sanders thing and going for the farther left progressive wing of the Democratic Party. And when you think about it, if that's the margin that they need for swing states or prevention of Republican control of not only offices, but of election processes themselves and the people who run those election processes, then you have to balance and fit your going high to the values of the people in that undecided group. And neither party has done that. It's more important for the Democrats to do it because that's the only group they're going to get. They're not going to change the minds of the Fox followers. They're not going to change the minds of people like McConnell or McCarthy or others. There are a lot of, and my friends are many of them. My friends are GOP conservatives. And I will say that they supported Trump in past elections. Yet they do value the ideals of our democracy and our free and fair elections. They do value the rule of law. And I guess my question is, I wonder if they're going to pay attention to these select hearing committee meetings that's going to air shortly on Thursday. And they hired a news media individual that's going to shape how these hearings are presented. I guess the question is, who do you think the audience is and how they're going to craft the message for these hearings starting Thursday? Such a great question. For those who are sports fans, let's take NFL football as an example or even college. For people who really know that sport, when they watch the game, the one they're listening to is not the play-by-play announcer, but the late John Madden, the color commentator, the one who tells you, OK, here's what's really going on. Here's what they're really thinking about. Here's what their strategy is. Here's why that didn't work, but here's how they're probably going to adjust. That really tells you how the game is being played, what the strategy is, and what's going on that's affecting the momentum and therefore the outcome of the game. So for me, I wouldn't pick a media expert. I'd pick a couple of the best trial lawyers I could find. People who are really, really good with juries, who really know how to connect with juries, what hits home with them, what brings true for them. And I think one of the things that these hearings are going to show us is that is it media focus to either try and win this round or to set some kind of persuasion base for the 2022 campaign and 2024 campaigns, or is it to do what the best of trial lawyers would do, get focus groups out there before the hearings, get experienced trial lawyers in the consult and say, OK, how do we present this in the way that is going to be the most persuasive, the most credible? And sustainably so. You know, I'm wondering if they looked at the Mueller report and the attempt to explain the Mueller report before the American public and acknowledge that that was a disaster. And maybe that's why they're saying, OK, how do we synthesize all this information, all our findings, all the texts, all the in-person witnesses, and synthesize that best for the American jury? You have to wonder if that's your approach. But you're right. It'd be nice to get the best of the legal minds to look at what's taking place and lay it out as if it were a case before a judge. But I don't think the American public can absorb that. One, they don't have the patience. They don't have the attention span. And two, as you previously suggested, they've already made up their minds. Well, a lot of them have. But what's going to make the difference in November this year and in November 2024 is the ones who may have not. And so if you get the people who are focused on how do you gather and present information, the most credibly, the most persuasively, in ways that are going to last and withstand the attacks of false witnesses? Because that's what really good trial lawyers do. They anticipate the false information. Did they defuse it? And then they overcome it with information that rings true to people because the sincerity, the detail, the specifics, the credibility all fit together in ways that connect with people's experience. If the House leadership that's presenting this could put this together in a way that really tells a convincing, credible story of how this was all put together, what it was intended, what's still going on, and what that means for our choices in our leadership and in the consequences on our daily lives, that's the real task here. And seeing how this is presented is going to tell us whether the people who are doing it understand that and understand it's important and how to do it. All righty, thanks. Chuck, the DOJ just charged four individuals. One was the leader of the Proud Boys. They discharged them with a conspiracy to commit sedition. Not an easy charge. Not one that you see handed out very often. Maybe since 1969, when seemingly people were fighting against the government. Does it surprise you that, A, the DOJ actually charged the Proud Boys? And two, will they be listening to these hearings? Will they be gathering facts? Will they be taking notes and trying to dot their eyes, cross their T's on their investigation that we really don't know much about? Well, I mean, first of all, everybody at the DOJ already has a day job. So the likelihood that they're going to put that aside and devote a substantial number of important people to follow these hearings in detail, it raises some doubts. Really? There may be people on it, but there will be more likely to be people who will be reporters. They gather the information. They'll digest it. They'll summarize it. They'll present it in briefings to their leadership. But what the DOJ waits for normally is until they get information presented directly from that House committee for consideration for possible prosecution. They're probably not going to act that. As far as the Proud Boys are concerned, well, you've got hundreds of people arrested. Whether it's going to make a difference to a lot of people that they've managed to pick four Proud Boy leaders and charge them with sedition, which is an extremely serious charge. Yes, the burden of proof is difficult, but this is not a criminal trial. This is a presentation in a public forum. Correct. That is correct. What about Merritt Garland's proclamation that he will take this investigation no matter how high it goes up? Should we take Merritt Garland and the attorney general of this country at his word? Do you think that is still the case? There's no reason to believe that he is dissembling or that he's exaggerating, but he's also been challenged or inaction on a lot of this stuff. It's been a year and a half, and while there are charges, there isn't anything really coherent and cohesive or comprehensive that would set a precedent and establish a pattern that would discourage something like this from happening again. And one of the reasons that 40% of the people out there are still saying no, the election was stolen, although there's no proof of that. And 61 courts were convinced of the contrary. Right. We have news media that's reporting that the select comedian will have some surprise witnesses. One was a videographer who documented meetings between the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. And then we have another DC officer that's going to testify. Don't we know, I mean, just what you said is we know the Proud Boys. We know there were certain paramilitary groups that were organizing and with the intent of invading the Capitol. We know that. Isn't the appetite really looking forward to see who in Congress was involved in this planning? To what degree was Eastman, Trump's attorney, and Trump? To what degree were they involved with direct planning and direction of the January 6th capital invasion? Isn't that the appetite that really we're looking for or many Americans are looking for versus the expected finger pointing at the Proud Boys and groups like that? That's a great point, and that is the crux of the matter. Can they connect these splinter groups as violent and as far right as they are to acting with and for with the expectation of support from the leadership of an entire political party? You know, the question also, in my mind, is to what degree during the hearings will Fox and Friends, I won't even call it Fox News anymore. I just can't, Fox Editorial, Fox Entertainment, to what degree are they going to try to distract their viewership away from this hearings? We know they're not going to broadcast it, which is, I think, incredible that something of this magnitude and importance is not going to be broadcasted. To what degree or what strategies do you think they may employ as a form of distraction? It's the same one they've always employed. If you're combating for control of the narrative, you're going to present anything that will attract the attention of your base and get enough coverage in the media to also get out into the public arena. You don't have to win that control of the narrative. You just have to not lose it. Do you think it's incumbent upon the Democrats to point out that glaring fact that there is an effort to distract and omit the importance of the hearings? Do you think Democrats have failed yet once again not to point that out in glaring terms? I think that's a really good point, because if you've got a lawyer on cross-examination, he's going to take a witness and he's going to ask them questions. What about this? What about this counter-argument? What about this counter-information? And let the witness provide information that's going to dispel and discredit those false claims. So yeah, if you're going to be effective in an information presentation, if you're going to tell a story to try and gain credibility and persuasiveness, you have to also rebut the information that is presented. But you do it by truthful information presentation that comes together so well and so convincing that the claims to the contrary just don't fly with intelligent people. You can't try to convince the people who are not going to change their minds, whether that's 40% give or take or more or less. Forget that. Focus on that 10%, 15%, 20% that may actually still be taking in information, that still may be weighing information, that still may be forming opinions and decisions. That's a good point. And I know attorneys know this, and I know those who write speeches for public address, they know that it's so much harder to try to persuade someone away from a belief versus a value or an attitude. You can shape an attitude. You can shape a value, but beliefs, once they're set in concrete, good luck. And I think our politics now have really entered into the realm of beliefs versus the politics of values or attitudes. Well, that's an important point, Tim, because if you look at the Republican-talking and strategy, what's most absent from those is the values on which this country was founded and which have so far enabled it to move in very halting steps forward and backward to and from democracy, not to it, but at least in many ways in that direction. And they're moving very, very concertedly away from it toward a minority control, away from popular control. Yeah, I mean, excellent point, Chuck. And I think to further point that out is look at the 2020 GOP platform. There wasn't one. Look at what Mitch McConnell said about the 2024. There won't be one. I mean, so if you don't need a platform, all you need to do is have faith and belief in Donald Trump and that's good enough. I mean, it's a really amazing how we've come down to this point in our politics that policies be damned, they're not important. Only the personality that's leading their party is the important aspect. You know, Tim, that points towards something that hasn't been picked up by media or pretty much anyone. And that is what's missing from this picture is a truly charismatic leader of conscience and character. We have not had one for quite some time. And until such a person or group appears on the scene, this battle can be fought at that very low divisive destructive level. Well, when we haven't seen a charismatic leader like Donald Trump in decades, maybe since FDR or John Kennedy, but certainly he uses his skill set in his rhetoric and I'll say propaganda, not for the best purposes of this nation, for the slow erosion of democracy and to autocracy. And that's the soul of which we're fighting for. And maybe that's the importance of these hearings is to put a spotlight on that, which is a fundamental building block of our government and the principles of our government, a free and fair election. So let me, again, I pontificate a bit. So let me get to, do you expect anything new or earth shattering, you know, a Perry Mason moment to occur on the first day of the hearings? I think what we're looking at on the first day is how are they going to approach this? Who do they really see as their audience? Who are they trying to reach? Who are they trying to convince and persuade? If that is independence, people whose decisions have not yet been made, that's a very different kind of presentation. That's a trial lawyer's presentation. And if it is a trial lawyer's presentation, will it captivate the attention and the interest of the American public? If it were really done that way, I think it would have the best chance possible of achieving that. I don't expect that to happen. And that's disappointing. Yeah, we're almost out of time. That is the high road. Yeah, we're almost out of time. But my last question is this, to what degree will it be a ripple effect that impacts the midterms coming up here in November? Any findings from this hearing that's going to actually either discourage people from turning out to vote or encourage people to turn out to vote? Well, the actions that discourage and encourage people to vote are actually happening more at the state level now than at the national level. The Republicans have made sure at the national level to prevent that kind of protection of our election system from happening. And they have enough sway and enough for the state legislatures to be able to erode that seriously. That's the problem. These hearings will not change that. Good point, excellent point. I want to thank you for being a guest on this show. I'd like to ask you for your last thought or comment about the hearing and let it fly. I would love to see these hearings identify people of character, conscience, and courage who resisted the attempt to undermine and overthrow our electoral process, the choice of the people. If those stories can be told, there may be some room for thought. Alrighty, thank you very much, Chuck. I'd like to thank Chuck Grumpton for joining us. I'm going to conclude with a very mini little editorial and that is, for those who watch Fox News, please enlighten yourself. Turn on another station, watch what's going on, watch the detail that's being presented, and give a hoot about your democracy, not just your party. And with that, I'll say thank you for joining us on American Issues, take one. I'm Tim Apachele, your host. Won't you please join us next Wednesday at 11 o'clock and we'll see you then. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.